Effect of source material on anime experience.

[Goshin]

How does reading source material (manga, vn, ln) affect your animecviewing experience?

I feel that reading manga makes me lazy when it comes to keeping up to current series ot sitting through a whole season. Since i already know what's going to happen there is no suspense. Sometimes I just watch the specific scene i wanted to see animated.
I also feel reading reading a source material beforehand makea me more critical of the anime.
meanwhile, when I don't read a source material I become more tolerant of filler material. I usually don don't eve realize it's a filler unless it has an abrupt change of plot or pace. For examples I always enkoyed gxliked the side island fillers and did not realize that until i started reading the manga.

What do you guys think?

[Akito Kinomoto]

Assuming the adaptation and source material are good in their own right,

Reading source material before a faithful adaptation: little in the way of surprise, maybe some routes from a visual novel need to be excluded, could potentially be a double-edge sword with light novels depending on how characters and settings are envisioned in your head VS what's on screen.

Reading source material before a loose adaptation: I have no experience on this. Some viewer reactions I've noticed get increasingly sour the more it deviates though.

Watching a faithful adaptation before reading source material: little in the way of surprise, enjoy my favorite Chinese cartoon girl from the anime as depicted in the visual novel as much I want to (AHEM), although something lost going to a more 'traditional' book like a light novel is the capacity to imagine scenarios when the on-screen stuff from the adaptation probably goes into your head. Maybe it's not issue for some, but there it is.

Watching a loose adaptation before reading source material: Idk actually.

I feel like we might have had this topic before, but anyway, while I'm not immune to wishing the story in Title Variant X played out more like in Title Variant Y, I'd still try to judge either letter on its own merits. Like when someone says Little Busters! is just better suited to anime than Clannad because of the nature of their VNs*, that point gets lost on me not being a VN reader. Then again, I don't have to agree with everything the source material did either.

Spoiler for A Certain Scientific Railgun:

In the manga, Dr. Stripper makes a power grab to avenge the dead kids. In the anime, Dr. Stripper makes a power grab to save the kids. I'm inclined to empathize with what the anime did a lot more since I suspect a person in her position and of her intellect would know full well avenging the dead won't bring them back. Stopping them from kicking the bucket is more believable imo. That, and the series doesn't have the writing chops to make a believable avenger. As far as I've read anyway.

*This statement is totally harmless and not calling out anyone. Nope.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

I feel like we might have had this topic before...

Yup.

The Chains of the Adaptation: Is it easier to like original anime? (created Oct 7, 2012)



I have my own very strong views on the subject, which most people in this forum disagree with.

Simply put, I treat the adaptation and the original source as two different entities, and evaluate them on their own merits.

Of course, I'd compare the two — that's only natural.

But I consciously remind myself not to allow my impressions of one version of the story influence the way I evaluate the other. It's not easy, but it can be done. It's easier when you have relevant academic background in literary/film criticism, because that's what students have to do when assessing different interpretations of a story.

American director Robert Altman's analysis of Akira Kurosawa's film, Rashomon, best illustrates what I mean.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/oYWQa0GExt8

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

From 00:40 to 01:26:

"The main thing here is that when one sees a film, you see the characters on screen. It's not like reading, where you imagine certain things. You see very specific things. You see a tree. You see a sword. So, you take that, one takes that as truth.

"But in this film, you take it as truth, and then you find out that it is not necessarily true.

"And you see these various versions of the episode that has taken place that these people are talking about. And you're never told which is true and which isn't true, which leaves you, to the proper conclusion that it's all true, and none of it is true."

In this specific case, Altman was referring to how Rashomon deliberately portrays four different versions of a crime told from the perspectives of different witnesses, and he analysed how the way the camera work and acting lull the viewer into thinking that each version is true, even though logic dictates that at least one version is false.

By analogy, the difficulty I find that many anime/manga fans have is their inability to separate their interpretations of "truth" from the way it was presented in either the manga or the anime, regardless of which was the original source.

Someone who reads a manga first, for example, would have in his head what he deems to be the "correct" voices for various characters, and how each character should "emote" in any given scene. He would also have very specific interpretations of what background music or sound, as well as what colours, would go best with certain scenes.

And yet, these are interpretations based on his own subjective opinions from reading the manga, which doesn't give very many direct clues about these audio-visual details.

So, when he sees the anime adaptation, and finds that it differs from how he imagined the story should have sounded and looked, based on his interpretation of the manga, all hell breaks loose if he's unable to accept the subjective difference.

Vice versa for manga adaptations of original anime.

===============

The way to get around this is to always remember what Altman said above: "The proper conclusion is that it's all true, and none of it is true."

In academic criticism, the way you approach analysis is to always be keenly aware of how you came to your subjective opinions of a story, within the context of its medium. And while you'll always come across situations where you'd have to compare different interpretations of the story in different mediums, you do so with the very specific qualification that it's not entirely fair to compare one approach to storytelling in one medium, to another approach to storytelling in a different medium.

Because, in such cases, you're comparing apples to oranges. It won't be a fair evaluation of either fruit.

Once you accept that different interpretations of a story are always allowed, in the name of creative freedom, you'll have no problem even when one version of the story differs completely from the other, regardless of which is the source. That's because, as far as analysis is concerned, you're only interested in how one specific version of the story was developed within its specific medium.

[Fizix]

I haven't encountered all that much source material, but generally I find that an LN is better than the anime as its tone tends to be quite different, can be more serious, dialogue often less cheesy and usually its either devoid or light on the otaku visual fluff you get in the anime.

Of course, a certain measure of that is going to be in how you visualise it, but I think the above is a reasonably safe statement.

In a nutshell, anime adaptations of source material are dumbed down. I think thats even more the case now than what it was a decade or more ago. I find it much more difficult to find shows that I can take seriously or aren't pandering to otaku culture.

If I were to hazard a guess as to why; I would say its a mixture of creating throwaway content to hook an audience in and creating something that's essentially a marketing vehicle for itself and its merchandise. If its purpose is just to make money out of obsessive types, then it isn't going to be heavy on creative or narrative value.

[Utsuro no Hako]

I'm much more of a manga fan than anime, so a lot of the shows I watch are adaptations of things I've already been following. I look at the anime as a nice bonus, something that will get the story in front of more people, so instead of discussing it with three people in the manga forum, there'll be a dozen talking about it in the anime section.

What I don't get are people who say things like, "Why would you ruin the anime by reading the source material first?" It's like they assume anime is the default way to consume a story, and it never occurs to them to ask, "Why would you ruin the source material by watching the anime first?"

[Archon_Wing]

I think being familiar with another medium source is problematic because shows will take liberties with little details. As an obscure detail, take the Pokemon anime where Pikachu takes out ground type pokemon with electric attacks. As someone that's played the game, that's just fucking terrible and ruins suspection of disbelief. I think to myself "Dude, Ash is a hacker, and he still sucks!" even if other people don't care. And the gym leaders are missing part of their lineup. Who the fuck battles with only 1 pokemon; stupid scrubs.

As for manga, well, I only usually read perv manga for some reason, but it does disappoint me greatly when they have to sanitize it so much that it ceases to be a perv anime. Unless they pull a Feel and not a Xebec or something.

In the end if the anime itself is consistent, I tend to build a bridge and get over it. Or consider that the source material was probably crap (especially if it's an LN) to begin with anyways (Oh, nobody ever considered that!)

There is of course exceptions, and if you have some series on a pedestal I can't really blame you. For example, there is no way G senjou no Maou could be an anime without scrutinizing the hell out it because I'd expect it to be the most epic thing since (insert last epic thing here). If it were "good" that would just not be enough.

Finally, Deen sucks.

[aohige]

Knowing the source manga DOES definitely make me lazy on keeping up with some anime.

I don't see it as a negative though, I've always been more of a manga aficionado of three decades.
Like Utsuro above, anime is a bonus, not the main entertainment.

[Fizix]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I think being familiar with another medium source is problematic because shows will take liberties with little details. As an obscure detail, take the Pokemon anime where Pikachu takes out ground type pokemon with electric attacks. As someone that's played the game, that's just fucking terrible and ruins suspection of disbelief. I think to myself "Dude, Ash is a hacker, and he still sucks!" even if other people don't care. And the gym leaders are missing part of their lineup. Who the fuck battles with only 1 pokemon; stupid scrubs.

As for manga, well, I only usually read perv manga for some reason, but it does disappoint me greatly when they have to sanitize it so much that it ceases to be a perv anime. Unless they pull a Feel and not a Xebec or something.

In the end if the anime itself is consistent, I tend to build a bridge and get over it. Or consider that the source material was probably crap (especially if it's an LN) to begin with anyways (Oh, nobody ever considered that!)

There is of course exceptions, and if you have some series on a pedestal I can't really blame you. For example, there is no way G senjou no Maou could be an anime without scrutinizing the hell out it because I'd expect it to be the most epic thing since (insert last epic thing here). If it were "good" that would just not be enough.

Finally, Deen sucks.

To Aru Majutsu No Index (especially so) and Sword Art Online are both much better in LN form, in my opinion, but I don't think its an unfounded opinion. I think its a bit shortsighted to assume the LN's are crap without checking them out.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

Then again, I don't have to agree with everything the source material did either.

Spoiler for A Certain Scientific Railgun:

In the manga, Dr. Stripper makes a power grab to avenge the dead kids. In the anime, Dr. Stripper makes a power grab to save the kids. I'm inclined to empathize with what the anime did a lot more since I suspect a person in her position and of her intellect would know full well avenging the dead won't bring them back. Stopping them from kicking the bucket is more believable imo. That, and the series doesn't have the writing chops to make a believable avenger. As far as I've read anyway.

Spoiler for Railgun plot spoiler:

Slightly off-topic but in BOTH the manga and the anime the story for that character is the same; no kids died. In that sense, the anime was very faithful for that part at least. It did give an anime only continuation which by most accounts is canon anyway as characters appear in the manga later.

[AnimeFangirl]

If I read the manga first, I won't watch the anime. There's no point, really.
If I watch the anime first, then read the manga, when a new anime season comes out that I've already read, I won't bother watching it.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Fizix

To Aru Majutsu No Index (especially so) and Sword Art Online are both much better in LN form, in my opinion, but I don't think its an unfounded opinion. I think its a bit shortsighted to assume the LN's are crap without checking them out.

Well, I never said all or even most LNs were bad but from my experiences with various source materials over time, I'd say just going by basic premises they're usually the least impressive.

But that's not my point anyways. My point is that it's entirely possible the actual source material could have been lacking to begin with and naturally the point in translation would magnify any such imperfections.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Fizix

To Aru Majutsu No Index (especially so) and Sword Art Online are both much better in LN form, in my opinion, but I don't think its an unfounded opinion. I think its a bit shortsighted to assume the LN's are crap without checking them out.

Nonsense. If an idea is the same, light novel and anime, and that idea is what you dislike... It makes little difference if it's the source material or the adaption. Sword Art Online having Kirito being the ultimate Gary Stu does not change in the light novel, so I think it would be quite fair to say the source is flawed to begin with, which is the greater point being made here. I say this as someone who has read some of the light novels of these stories.

Of course we must be careful about assuming that things in the anime are exactly in the same as in the light novel and these changes can create significant differences in entertainment value. Maybe certain characters feel underdeveloped because they cut out monologues or cut out entire scenes altogether. Maybe the adaption is paced so fast that you basically lost half the essence of the story. However, these factors are often pretty different from taking issue with more fundamental problems in a story's creation. Infinite Stratos isn't going to suddenly not become a generic battle harem story.

[Goshin]

Originally Posted by AnimeFangirl

If I read the manga first, I won't watch the anime. There's no point, really.
If I watch the anime first, then read the manga, when a new anime season comes out that I've already read, I won't bother watching it.

That's actually how i started reading naruto manga. It started during the filler hell between the timeskip. Even an previously anime only watcherlike me grew tired of the fillers and I sought out the Manga. After that i wouls grow into the habit of reading manga when an anime I like stalled or was cancelled. I think Ive only read maybe only 4-5 manga with no Anime adaptions. I always say to myself I need to read more. But there so much to choose from.
I've also never read a light novel. We dont get those where i live. Nor do i no where to get them on yhe net.

[relentlessflame]

To the OP's point, I think that reading the source material basically makes you more aware of the approach the production committee took to adapting the material. And where that leads totally depends both on the viewer/reader and of course on that very approach.

As it became more common to have access to the Light Novels source material in English over these last years, I noticed that there was an increase in the sort of desire for, or pressure for, a sort of "uncompromising adaptation." There didn't seem to be as much understanding or recognition of the fact that adaptations are always a question of compromise in some form if you're going to draw a direct parallel between one and the other. People were often holding up the source material on a pedestal and questioning every single decision made in the anime adaptation that wasn't rendering it exactly like the source. I sort of feel like we're moving out of this phase a little bit, and while some of those comparisons are still being made, people are beginning to realize the sort of compromises that make sense for each different medium, and the sorts of constraints that are often imposed.

I think this eventually can lead to a point where fans can be savvy enough to separate the source and the adaptation and judge both on its own merits, as some have already advocated in this thread. You start to get a bit of an inside look on how the director/writer(s) interpreted certain elements in the story, and perhaps how the production committee may have influenced the direction in order to further business/marketing objectives and so on. For some people, that can sort of disenchant them from watching the anime adaptations at all, but others sort of learn to just sort of "take them for what they are." This isn't to say that you abandon all expectations, but more like judging them based on the things that you realistically expect they should be able to pull off within reasonable/expected constraints.

To a certain degree, ignorance is bliss. We went through a period over these last few years where there have been a lot of very vocal source readers for whom reading the source was a big deal and it really dominated the discussion. I don't think that's going away, exactly, but I think the tone will continue to change a bit going forward as it becomes a bit more common place. I think many will eventually emerge with a fuller, more nuanced view on the strengths and weaknesses of the mediums, how adaptations generally work, and thus what to expect.


And for what it's worth...

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Nonsense. If an idea is the same, light novel and anime, and that idea is what you dislike... It makes little difference if it's the source material or the adaption. Sword Art Online having Kirito being the ultimate Gary Stu does not change in the light novel, so I think it would be quite fair to say the source is flawed to begin with, which is the greater point being made here. I say this as someone who has read some of the light novels of these stories.

I never felt this in the anime quite as much as some others did, as I did feel the story developed the character's flaws despite the protagonist-centrality. (No argument that it could have been more effectively portrayed.) But I think the reason why some may find it less pronounced in the novels (not just this particular franchise, but I hear this sort of comment regarding many LN adaptations) is that the presence of internal monologue helps to flesh out the portrayal in a way that a "show, don't tell" sort of adaptation won't really be able to project as clearly. Anime is better at portraying action (it's a "visual medium"), and allows the viewer to intuit motivation. But prose can be better at conveying a character's intent.

So while I agree that to a certain degree the elements you may like or dislike probably won't change (it's not like the source will make it "all better"), these elements can either be augmented or diminished based on the medium and the way the story is told. For example, some people may have found Kirito way more tolerable in the novels because they had a better sense of what was going on in his head, which wasn't conveyed as fully in the anime. Of course, I think the polarized nature of the discussion of the show at the time caused some novel readers to completely throw the anime under the bus for "transgressions" that really weren't that significant, and the virtues of the novel were sort of oversold as a overreaction to negative reaction from anime-only viewers. As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

(There are certainly cases where I would argue absolutely that the amount of detail and subtlety lost in the adaptation were clearly detrimental to the story. For example, I'd nominate Oreimo as an example of this. Of course, I don't think it's enough that people who hate the franchise would suddenly like it, as the overall general concept remains the same. But many of the more specific issues people had with the way things played out were the result of some rather notable artistic liberties taken by the anime director that were sometimes at odds with the original author's intent.)

Anyway, this sort of ties back to what I was saying above about the necessary compromises that play to the strengths and weaknesses of each respective medium, and beginning to see a little bit of "how the sausage is made," for good or ill. Sometimes it can certainly be a lot easier (and even more enjoyable) to just remain willfully ignorant.

[Darthtabby]

Years ago, I read a fan translation of the two part novel that Full Metal Panic: The Second Raid was based on, then watched the anime itself. I ended up being one of the few people who kind of disliked that very highly regarded anime. (Granted, some of that was probably me having issues with Kyoto's art style being different from that of the studio that did the first season, but some of it was definitely due to changes from the source material.)

On the other hand, there's a couple of cases where I've seen an anime, then read the source material, and still preferred the anime afterwards. The best example of that is probably the movie To Aru Hikuushi e no Tsuioku, known in English as The Princess and the Pilot. I know another poster deemed the novel version "one hundred times better" but I preferred the movie -sure, it lost some things, but it was less otaku and it was lean, fast paced, and focused on the core story. (Of course being a movie where the source material was adapted by the writer who wrote the scripts for The Girl who Leapt Through Time, Summer Wars and Wolf Children makes that example rather different from your average late night light novel adaptation.)

My general feeling on the majority of adaptations where I'm not familiar with the source material is that source material fans gripe far too much. I remember one case where a fan complained about a "fifteen minute" conversation being cut. My view is that if someone is adapting a novel into a few anime episodes that aren't much more then twenty minutes a piece, then cutting a fifteen minute conversation is exactly the kind of thing they should be doing unless a) the conversation is really important or b) is absolutely scintillating. I also tend to doubt whether the source material for such adaptations was actually all that good in the first place.

I don't think adaptations are necessarily worse than their source material (in fact, I think a truly great adaptation should improve on its source material). I tend to find a lot of them are better in some ways and worse in others.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Darthtabby

Years ago, I read a fan translation of the two part novel that Full Metal Panic: The Second Raid was based on, then watched the anime itself. I ended up being one of the few people who kind of disliked that very highly regarded anime. On the other hand, there's a couple of cases where I've seen an anime, then read the source material, and still preferred the anime afterwards.

I once argued strenuously for readers of the Attack On Titan manga to avoid bringing in comparisons from the source material to their assessments of the anime adaptation. My main point of contention was that such comparisons are meaningless to viewers who were approaching the story for first time through the anime (not to mention that discussing the manga in an anime thread posed the very strong risk of dropping unintentional spoilers). Moreover, I argued that their impressions of the anime had been biased by their first impressions from reading the manga, and that they had to separate the two in order to give the anime a fair evaluation.

My argument, unsurprisingly, provoked vociferous responses. Most of the manga fans were unwilling to budge from a simple — but not invalid — premise: It's their freedom to bring in such comparisons if they wished, especially since the anime is supposed to be an adaptation of the manga (the unspoken assumption being that an anime adaptation had no business in deviating from the intentions of source).

The strongest rebuttal, however, was that my argument could also be turned against me. It was pointed out that it's impossible to prevent bias based on first impressions, regardless whether those were formed from having read the manga source, or from having watched the anime adaptation first.

As you've observed, there will be cases where you will prefer the adaptation over its source, and it will not always be obvious whether it's because you watched it before you read the original.

I didn't bother to argue my point further, because it was clear that patience was wearing thin in the AoT sub-forum.

But I'll try to reiterate the argument here: I wasn't arguing about ignoring our biases. I fully acknowledge that it's impossible to do so. The point, however, was about recognising the biases we bring to any story, and learning to discount them from our evaluation of any project, be it manga, anime or light novels.

That's what I mean when I call on readers of manga or LN source materials "to separate the two in order to give the anime [adaptation] a fair evaluation".

Originally Posted by Darthtabby

In fact, I think a truly great adaptation should improve on its source material.

Yes, indeed. Although, I think we'll find that everyone will have his own idea of what constitutes "improvement".

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

I never felt this in the anime quite as much as some others did, as I did feel the story developed the character's flaws despite the protagonist-centrality. (No argument that it could have been more effectively portrayed.) But I think the reason why some may find it less pronounced in the novels (not just this particular franchise, but I hear this sort of comment regarding many LN adaptations) is that the presence of internal monologue helps to flesh out the portrayal in a way that a "show, don't tell" sort of adaptation won't really be able to project as clearly. Anime is better at portraying action (it's a "visual medium"), and allows the viewer to intuit motivation. But prose can be better at conveying a character's intent.

So while I agree that to a certain degree the elements you may like or dislike probably won't change (it's not like the source will make it "all better"), these elements can either be augmented or diminished based on the medium and the way the story is told. For example, some people may have found Kirito way more tolerable in the novels because they had a better sense of what was going on in his head, which wasn't conveyed as fully in the anime. Of course, I think the polarized nature of the discussion of the show at the time caused some novel readers to completely throw the anime under the bus for "transgressions" that really weren't that significant, and the virtues of the novel were sort of oversold as a overreaction to negative reaction from anime-only viewers. As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

(There are certainly cases where I would argue absolutely that the amount of detail and subtlety lost in the adaptation were clearly detrimental to the story. For example, I'd nominate Oreimo as an example of this. Of course, I don't think it's enough that people who hate the franchise would suddenly like it, as the overall general concept remains the same. But many of the more specific issues people had with the way things played out were the result of some rather notable artistic liberties taken by the anime director that were sometimes at odds with the original author's intent.)

I don't disagree. I do think there are various qualities in the "writing" that can contribute to the material in ways a visual medium can't. Namely, as you said, its ability to delve deeper into the thought processes of a character can be pretty valuable. The recent Mahouka adaption suffered from a similar problem with its main character Tatsuya, who is also a ridiculous OP character (Though I would argue his role works better in Mahouka for various reasons, but that's neither here nor there), because so much of the story is built from his monologues. The richness of the world setting, his own character development, insight into other character's personalities and actions, and even just basic plot information is augmented by his various monologues throughout the story, but for the most part this is absent in the anime. They tried to get around it by doing more "showing" rather than "telling," but it was pretty clear to me that many anime viewers did not realize what certain scenes were quite about without prior knowledge. Worse, they were often disinterested in the cast because so much of the character intrigue was completely missing.

However, my point was that even if somehow the anime kept all these "qualities" from the source material, it would do little to deter the more fundamental problems of the story. If people hate the incestual undertones in Mahouka, the source material will do little to alleviate those problems. If they find it has some potentially questionable political viewpoints, the light novel again will not do much to change their mind (For the record I don't subscribe to this dogma about Mahouka somehow being Ayn Rand philosophy 101 ).

So basically, the issue isn't so simple and I think understanding a bit of both perspectives is key to better dialogue. While there are often are significant differences that could change the perception of any story, it really just depends on what criticism there is in the first place.

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Anyway, this sort of ties back to what I was saying above about the necessary compromises that play to the strengths and weaknesses of each respective medium, and beginning to see a little bit of "how the sausage is made," for good or ill. Sometimes it can certainly be a lot easier (and even more enjoyable) to just remain willfully ignorant.

I think a lot of staff out there lack imagination with adaptions. A little secret about the old KyoAni that people praised for high quality adaption efforts is that they often took several liberties with their adaptions. Whether it was the out of order airing of Haruhi, or basically the significant alterations to the original visual novel of Kanon, they definitely were not a completely faithful studio despite being praised as such. We could really use more of that today, but people seem way too stuck in this idea of 1:1 adaptions. It just has to be exactly as I imagined it when reading the source with movie quality budget the whole way! Well suffice to say, no wonder people are always so dissatisfied.

[Marcus H.]

I once argued strenuously for readers of the Attack On Titan manga to avoid bringing in comparisons from the source material to their assessments of the anime adaptation. My main point of contention was that such comparisons are meaningless to viewers who were approaching the story for first time through the anime (not to mention that discussing the manga in an anime thread posed the very strong risk of dropping unintentional spoilers). Moreover, I argued that their impressions of the anime had been biased by their first impressions from reading the manga, and that they had to separate the two in order to give the anime a fair evaluation.

As a fan of Toaru Majutsu no Index, I know that feel, and it's also something I have to face while reading the Absolute Duo thread.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I think a lot of staff out there lack imagination with adaptions. A little secret about the old KyoAni that people praised for high quality adaption efforts is that they often took several liberties with their adaptions. Whether it was the out of order airing of Haruhi, or basically the significant alterations to the original visual novel of Kanon, they definitely were not a completely faithful studio despite being praised as such. We could really use more of that today, but people seem way too stuck in this idea of 1:1 adaptions. It just has to be exactly as I imagined it when reading the source with movie quality budget the whole way! Well suffice to say, no wonder people are always so dissatisfied.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I think the issue isn't actually whether or not liberties are taken, because -- as you allude to -- a true 1:1 adaptation isn't even possible, and probably wouldn't even be desirable. But I guess what fans of the source material probably want the most is for the anime to convey somehow that the people directing the anime are also fans of the material to some degree, and are doing everything they can to bring out the same good points they would want to see emphasized. So that, even if they do some deviations that you may not agree with (i.e. the way Nayuki was handled in Kanon 2006, for example), overall you can say they definitely tried hard and did their best. And I think that's really the thing that caused people to admire Kyoto Animation in the first place -- you really had the sense that they felt a deep passion for their work, and it was all the little things that made you see they truly cared about their craft. If a work feels like it was just churned out the production line and doesn't really convey any of the same sense of passion, then the source fans will really rail on them for every little deviation, because it's like "at least if you had done this, it wouldn't have felt so messed up." Of course these things are subjective, and it isn't necessarily the case either that the staff didn't care or that the things the fans wish for would be beneficial or even possible. But if source fans see anime-only viewers walk away confused or disenchanted from a work they really liked in source form, they may question what the anime is doing to prevent the same general feeling from being conveyed and have the sense that "this could have been so much better."

[Solace]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

But I'll try to reiterate the argument here: I wasn't arguing about ignoring our biases. I fully acknowledge that it's impossible to do so. The point, however, was about recognising the biases we bring to any story, and learning to discount them from our evaluation of any project, be it manga, anime or light novels.

I have to ask, but how often have you read the manga/novel before watching the anime?

I ask this because while you are correct that people should drop some of their bias when judging, an argument could be made for "ignorance is bliss". That is to say, that it's easy to criticize and/or reject the opinions of a manga/novel reader when the only thing you are interested in is the anime.

It's not too uncommon to see people latch on to a particular thing and reject all other versions of that thing.

Heh, and as I posted this, relentless is kinda echoing where I was going with the question.